48 comments:

I haven't been able to sit through a complete Bond movie since the late 80's. Now, I can still sit and watch an entire Sean Connery/Roger Moore Bond movie when they're shown on BBC. The main issue with me is that there's not really anything that makes the newer Bond movies stand out from the regular action movies that are wall to wall these days. It's not really the actors now.....I always figured Pierce Brosnan would be a great Bond and Daniel Craig seems okay. I like the older ones better. They're more stylish, less gritty. I get tired of "gritty." I have to live in "gritty" everyday.

You'll forgive me, I'm sure, for pointing out that the Bond movies are shown on ITV, G, not BBC. (If only they were, then we wouldn't have to suffer adverts.) I think Barbara Broccoli missed the point when she said that after 9/11 (or 11/9 in Britain) the movies would seem too frivolous if they hadn't become grittier. I'd say that, in the times in which we now live, we need the older style of Bond movies more than ever. I don't mind the serious fighting scenes, but we should still have the humour and the 'comicbook' element of the '60s and '70s films. Let's hope that if Craig does another one, he gets to do it in the classic way.

The last Bond movies I've seen were on the BBC-America channel, and they were several years ago. I wondered why I haven't seen them lately.....I don't get any of the channels that you listed. As you pointed out much better than I did, the humor and comic book element are what's missing......sometimes that's missing in today's actual comic book movies, too. Maybe we aren't that target audience anymore, Kid....the ones that like "gritty." Sometimes I don't think I'm a target audience for much of anything entertainment-related.

Ah, I was forgetting you weren't in Britain, G, so that explains them being on BBC. I'm not sure that we're the target audience for comicbooks themselves anymore, alas, never mind comicbook movies. 'Fun' seems to be a dirty word nowadays.

I have my own Spectre review scheduled for early April as I just watched the movie myself several days ago. I'm pretty much in agreement, though I liked the last Bond movie pretty well. This newer one was on simmer the whole time and I kept waiting for it to boil but it never ever did. It was a giant blah.

My youngest daughter informed me yesterday that she'd like to see the new Batman/Superman flick... "no problem" I said, "we'll go at the weekend". However, my wife took a look online & discovered that it's a PG13. This won't be a problem, since I'm assuming that me being with her will allow her to see the film, but how can anyone make a movie about Batman & Superman that isn't available to ALL children without them being chaperoned by an adult. That's just crazy to me.

As for Bond. I have to say I really like Craig as Bond, &would take any of his outings (yes, even Quantum Of Solace) over almost any Bond post 'Man With The Golden Gun' (Goldeneye & TWINE excepted). I would say that Spectre is the closest we've had to a Connery era Bond since he quit the role... infact since BEFORE he quit the role, given that Never Say Never Again is more like one of the bad Moore era movie than anything else.

Yeah, I felt that there was a couple of good action scenes, but just too much talking for a Bond movie, Rip. And the whole 'Blofeld as a brother' thing was pretty ridiculous. I'll look forward to your review.

******

I think poor Rog takes undeserved flak for the direction the movies took, Staz. They became, arguably, slightly more outrageous with Diamonds Are Forever, when Tom Mankiewicz came on board and Moore simply inherited that. In fact, even the early Bonds had large dollops of comicbook style content, but seem less fantastic now because real world technology has overtaken them. (Undersea lairs, space capsule-swallowing rockets, volcano headquarters, space-laser satellites, etc., don't seem so impossible nowadays.) Personally, I loved most of Roger's 007 films because they were fun. the only one that was a bit of a damp squib was From A View To A Kill. And the two Timothy Dalton ones were uninspired and underwhelming I thought. However, to each his own, eh?

Well, I'm 6' 1" (genuinely) and as you know from my previous avatar photos, Kid, I'm also devastatingly handsome so I'm clearly a shoe-in for the next 007. But wasn't Daniel Craig chosen precisely BECAUSE he was different from all those suave Bonds of the past ? I think they wanted a rougher, tougher Bond as I recall. The only Daniel Craig Bond film I've seen was Casino Royale which I thought was okay. Didn't Catherine Zeta-Jones say that she wanted James Bond to become JANE Bond (played by her of course) ?...

Whatever reasons he was chosen for, CJ, there isn't that much of a difference, apart from him being shorter and looking like a boxer. Did Catherine Zeta-Jones-Douglas say that? Silly woman. Have to say, I think you're more handsome in your new avatar than you were in your old one.

I have to say that I really liked Daniel Craig in "Spectre" (did not like "Quantum Of Solace" though). I didn't like Brosnan as Bond (he got the role to late imho) but I did like Timothy Daltons 2 film run on the character (unlike most folk I think) - But for me it has got to be the Connery and Moore era for Bond but that only becasue that was my Bond as a kid Im sure 13 year olds will love Craigs version best etc thats just life.

You're probably right in a lot of what you say, but I can't help think that a little of the magic has gone. Spectre never quite kicked off in my opinion. Let's hope the next one is better. On the matter of Brosnan, I think he was unfairly treated; he still had a couple of more movies in him at the time he was jettisoned. The older he got, the harder he looked.

I agree about Brosnon being treated unfairly, I definitely think he had a couple of good Bonds in him. I think he was made a bit of a scapegoat for the tragically bad Die Another Day, non of which was actually his fault, since the script was terrible & you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

I also agree that the Blofeld/Bond connection was awful, & if you follow the logic through you could argue that all the woes that the Quantum/Spectre organisation put the world through have been Bond's fault, because apparently it was just a massive plot to ruin Bond's life... though how Blofeld knew ahead of time that Bond would become a secret agent, I don't know... would have served him right if he'd spent all his life building an empire designed to piss off Bond, only to discover that grown up Jimbo was working as a plumber in Wigan, & knew nothing of international intrigue.

Regarding who should take on the Bond mantle (should Craig call it a day), if he hadn't just signed on to play Bryan Mills in the TV version of TAKEN I would have gone for Clive Standen.

Yeah, sometimes they just don't think things through, do they? And Blofeld would've recognized Bond immediately in OHMSS had he been brought up with him - quite apart from the fact that they'd both met in the previous film (YOLT). I'm not familiar with Clive Standen, but it'll certainly be interesting to see which actor does eventually land the role.

Clive has recently played a leading role in VIKINGS, which is why I became more aware of him recently (I'm currently drawing the comic based on the show for Titan).

Movie scriptwriters seem to be obsessed with ying & yang when it comes to heroes & villains. I can remember being right royally pissed off when in Tim Burton's first Batman the scriptwriters decided to make the Joker the man who killed Bruce Wayne's parents, when the whole point of their murder WAS the complete random nature of it, perpetrated by a 'nobody' two-bit thug, hence emphasising Gotham's need for a Batman. Apparently they have to tie things up in neat little packages.. to allow heroes 'closure' (what a terrible phrase that is).

I'm in two minds about the Batman/Joker thing, to be honest. On the one hand, it annoys me because it departs from comics continuity; on the other, I think it's kind of a neat ('though not necessary) idea. I seem to remember Bob Kane saying he wished he's done it that way. (What he meant of course, was that he wished Bill Finger had done it that way.) It worked for the movie, but I don't think the comics ever subsequently adopted it. Of course, the more recent Batman movies completely disregarded it.

It's true that the recent Bond films have seemed like generic action movies, with nothing to really set them apart. Even Connery's and Moore's worst were recognizably James Bond, and you wouldn't mistake them for Indiana Jones or Dirty Harry. Although some of Moore's, especially The Man With the Golden Gun, got kind of dangerously close to Matt Helm movies.

The premise of Spectre (our own security/intelligence agencies being infiltrated and turned against us) was similar to the second Captain America movie. And the McGuffin (the Nine Eyes surveillance gadget) was basically the same as the God's Eye in Fast & Furious 7.

And the Bond-Blofeld connection was silly. Bond and Blofeld are not Arthur and Mordred, or Thor and Loki.

Agree that Moore shouldn't be blamed for the direction that the series took in the 1970's. Even before Connery quit, the films were getting campier, and more like comic books. It was probably more about each film needing to outdo the one before than it was about who was playing the lead.

I may be mistaken, and/or movie rating systems may be different in the UK, but I believe unaccompanied kids are allowed to attend PG-13 movies (in the US, anyway). If I understand the MPAA system correctly, "G" means all ages admitted, no restrictions; "R" means minors must be accompanied by a parent or other adult guardian; and "NC-17" means adults only. "PG" (for "parental guidance") and "PG-13" are kind of a gray area. All ages admitted, but parental discretion is advised, and, with the PG-13 rating, parents are "strongly cautioned."

Generally, film makers try to avoid the restrictive "R" rating, since kids are an important part of the audience for action movies in general and superhero movies in particular. But violence and you-know-what are popular, so they try to go as far as they can within the PG or PG-13 limits.

Clive Owen would've made a superb Bond after Brosnan.And he resembles Fleming's description of Bond looking like actor/musician Hoagy Carmichael...In fact, "The Hire" short film series done for BMW in 2001-02 seemed like an audition reel for him...(The directors on the series included action pros John Woo, Ang Lee, Wong Kar-Wei, John Frankenheimer, Tony Scott, and Guy Ritchie)Unfortunately, it's a decade later...

TC, I haven't kept up on what the rating system is these days (in either country), as I now only attend the cinema on rare occasions, but I agree with you that it would be folly of the film-makers to limit the audience of a superhero movie by rating it 'too high'. Having said that 'though, I think they've done it before with some movies (not necessarily superhero ones), so I'm in the dark on this one I'm afraid. However, I agree with just about everything else you said about the Bond movies. It was the need to outdo the previous ones that pushed them even more into what some people would consider camp.

******

Britt, I was never persuaded that Clive Owen would be a good Bond because he seemed a bit lanky and round-shouldered to me. However, I agree that, facially, he fitted the part, but whenever I've seen him in a movie, I've never thought "Hey, he'd be a good Bond!" Having said that, when Pierce Brosnan was first considered for the role, I thought he was far from an ideal choice because the image I had of him was from Remington Steel, where he was too young and too skinny. When he did eventually get the part, I was surprised by how good he was, an amalgam of the best aspects of Connery and Moore, so perhaps Owen would've surprised me in a similar way.

I liked Clive Owen, he certainly had the look and the sullenness. Craig I have two bones to pick. First he doesn't look like Bond too blond. Second as others have noticed, these aren't Bond movies. All the elements are missing and they are only now trying to bring them back. No fun, no gadgets, no humor. I know people poo poo these fantastic elements but let's face it, they separated Bond from the Spy Who Came in From the Cold style of spy movies. The hard core boring ones.

I really didn't like the whole Bond/Blofeld revelation in Spectre. It reminded me of what I believe John Byrne once referred to as 'Claremontitis', where a fictional character never has anything normal happen to them.

I always felt that Lewis Collins was the best Bond we never had, I even blogged about it a few years ago when Lew sadly passed away.

For what it's worth, I had at least three good belly laughs & more than a few amused sniggers during Spectre. Plus, if the Aston DB10's gadgets letting Bond down at the crucial moment isn't self parody, I don't know what is. I'm no apologist for the Craig era, heaven knows it's not been perfect, but to criticise it on such petty grounds as 'too blonde' seems extremely hash at best. God knows what will be said when (as is almost inevitable eventually) Bond is played by a black actor.

I believe Fleming described Bond as a 'blunt weapon'. Other than the early Connery outings, no Bond actor has personified that better than Craig.

Lewis Collins would've made a good Bond - if he'd been tall enough, which, sadly, he wasn't. Cubby really wanted the actor to look the part and Craig is simply too small for the role.

Slipping into pedantry for a moment, Craig is too 'blond', not 'blonde', as blondes are female. Hey, perhaps they should changes his name to James Blond? that might work. I'm not sure that Bond's Aston Martin failing to deliver in the gadgets department is self-parody, as there should be an element of humorous mimicry in the act, but I agree it was a funny moment.

Bond should never be played by a black actor (or any other hue) in much the same way that Shaft, T'Challa or Luke Cage should never be played by a white actor - it just wouldn't be the same guy. Nothing racist about that comment as I'm being even-handed about it. I'd be just as against it if Bond had originally been black and they wanted to change him to white. Give us the character as he was created is my motto.

Besides, I've been told that Eon Productions original agreement with Fleming precludes them ever being able to depart too far from the original character of Bond, and changing his ethnicity wouldn't be allowed under that agreement. Same goes, presumably (and hopefully), for Bond ever being played as bisexual.

Staz, tell me - don't you think there's an element of racism about wanting to turn a character from one colour to another (whichever they happen to be)? To even propose a change sort of suggests a prejudice against the original colour of the character.

And yes, Bond WAS a blunt weapon, but he was a charming, sophisticated, TALL, blunt weapon, and Craig, alas, does not meet all those requirements.

No, I wasn't saying you'd said that, I just wondered what you thought about that 'inevitability' and was explaining my own view. As regards Craig, my feelings are mixed, Staz. I think he's very good in certain respects (especially the fight scenes), but I don't think he's the Bond I'm used to - or prefer. I just hope he gets the chance to do a 'classic' Bond movie, with all the tongue-in-cheek humour. Saw the first two Bourne movies and really enjoyed them, but Bond isn't Bourne and nor should he be. Bond films once had their own style, now they seem to be imitating others.

My description of a black Bond being inevitable is based on two factors. Firstly, the Bond franchise shows no signs of slowing down, despite a couple of hiccups along the way, the latest two have been the biggest ever, so I suspect the producers will be making more of them for a good few years to come. Combine that fact with the creep toward inclusivity in all things, it does seem inevitable to me that someday, some money guy in Hollywood will see a black/mixed race Bond will bring in even more Dollars at the box office.

I'm not sure I'd call that racism, I'd just call it stupid. The character is what the character is.. if you don't like it, or if you'd prefer it to be black, create your own black super-spy. I think retrofitting a fictional character to pander to modern sensibilities is pointless. If there comes a time that Bond or Batman or whoever needs to be changed so radically to make them relevant to a modern audience, then maybe it is time to retire them completely.And yes, that works both ways, Luke Cage or any other fictional black character should ALWAYS be black.

I read somewhere recently that there had been some online furor over the new Tarzan movie. You know the sort of thing 'white man saves black Africa from itself'. And maybe it IS time to retire that early 20th century notion that a white English Lord (even one raised by apes) will always triumph, rather than try to fit within our modern standards.

Well, I agree with most of what you say there; whether it's racism or not it's certainly stupid. I don't know much about the new Tarzan movie, but I've never thought of Tarzan as anything more than a writer's romanticised notion of what would happen if an orphaned human baby was brought up by apes. Once people start reading in racial or social subtexts that didn't exist in the writer's mind, then I'd say they're taking things too far. Thanks for contributing to an interesting discussion. (Well, I thought it was.)

Kid, the recent Deadpool film was an "R" rated film and so far it's made more than $300 million which is apparently the highest grossing R movie ever - Marvel films can do no wrong at the moment. Talking of James Bond's height - Barry Norman once said that Sean Connery was "Britain's only movie star" and that Connery was the only actor he's ever met who was as imposing in real life as he appeared on screen.

I've seen Deadpool, CJ - wasn't a bad little movie, but I suspect that a series of them will soon begin to wear thin on the audience. Breaking the fourth wall can be amusing at first, but it can become tiresome after a while when it's done constantly.I think Connery probably was/is imposing in real life, but whether that's inherent or bestowed by fame is unclear in some cases. I remember Bob Monkhouse saying that Bob Hope was well over six feet tall when he first met him, but he was actually only around 5' 10" or 10" and a half. I think Barry was wrong in saying that Connery was Britain's only movie star; he was conveniently forgetting James Mason, David Niven, Richard Burton, and a whole host of others.

As I mentioned above, I'm 6' 1" but people have often assumed that I'm taller - 6' 3" or even 6' 4" so maybe it's just difficult to tell above a certain height ? I agree that Barry Norman thinking Connery was Britain's only movie star is a bit strange...perhaps he was just a big fan of Connery.

You probably are taller once you've got your shoes on, CJ. The heels will give you an extra inch or inch and a half. Barry Norman probably meant that Connery was the only British movie star of superstar proportions, but even then I'd say he was selling the others a bit short. (No height pun intended.)

Ach well I'll never be Bond at 5ft 9 then darn it ! I actually don’t think it is racist to have (or not have) a black James Bond (unless it’s for racist reasons of course ). To me the films are based on the books. so why not have him Scots /English (I think that’s what he was) . The concept of James Bond is pretty silly anyway he based on a stereotypical male fantasy role of what “ man “ should be, I mean how can you be a secret agent when everyone knows who you are, in reality if he wasn’t shot he would have cirrhosis of the liver and STDs galore. But I quite like that role as it’s so dated (in a good way) within a great story – the 60s Bond isn’t too far at times, off the Austin Powers character.

I read the reasons for possibly having a different race / sex playing the Bond role was that the original (in the books) was now dead / retired and the Bond name and number was now just a generic name given to their top spy - so it could be anyone of any race or any sex – moving the character on for the 21st century (or not depending on your viewpoint)

I think that what prompts calls for a black or female (a woman called James? Really?) James Bond (or any other character) is the idea that there are too many white guys being the heroes, McS. However, it's only natural that white, heterosexual (presumably) males like Ian Fleming would write about a character that reflects themselves (with a large dollop of wishful thinking of course). If people object to heroes being white and male most of the time, then that suggests to me a prejudice against white males, which is a sort of racism and sexism. Are you female? Then write your own character. Are you black? Then write your own character. However, don't insist that I should be obliged to cater to your tastes just because you don't like mine. Calls for a black or female James Bond (or Dr. Who) are just a lot of PC sh*t by a few disgruntled (but vocal) individuals with a chip on their shoulder. I wouldn't look at Shaft and think "He should be white" so I don't know why anybody would look at Bond and say "He should be black". Nobody's preventing anybody from creating black or female equivalents of Bond, so what's stopping them? Instead of calls that Bond should be black, female, or bisexual. Next, it'll be calls for him to be transgendered. Strewth!

I based my idea that the Bond character could be any race/sex based on the new "concept" for Bond who in that scenario would not be the 60s Bond character. (but I think that is just to get folk talking). I agree with you in most cases why change a characters race/sex for the sake of it (I can see the point if he was no longer popular) I would certainly make it more PC in places (PC is not always a bad word) ie have more female and racially diverse characters added to Bonds allies etc to reflect the times etc. Im not vested inalot of these characters for example Icould really case if Dr Who is changed to a woman (it wont be) or Bond is black / female but dont mess with the Hulk !

I dont mind the Red Hulk that was someone else - actually I think they did change the the Hulk as Staz says to an Asian character via Totally Awesome Hulk I trhought that was a side proejct but seemingly they have ditched Banner and this is now the Hulk - aeghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Paul smash!!!

Kid, General Thunderbolt Ross was the Red Hulk and Betty Ross was the Red She-Hulk. Both have recently been cured by Doctor Green (a super-duper-intelligent Hulk). But Doctor Green is now no more and, as things are rarely permanent in comicdom, perhaps the Red Hulk and Red She-Hulk will return at some point.

If I understand correctly, the Craig movies are a reboot, so YOLT and OHMSS would not necessarily be relevant. But then, the slate wasn't really wiped clean, so stuff from the original series (like the Aston Martin) has creeped into the Craig films. It's as if they can't make up their minds what to delete, and what to retain.

Either way, the Bond-Blofeld connection was not only out of left field, it seemed imitative of Austin Powers. Which is a parody of James Bond. It's as if a Tarzan movie swiped an idea from a George of the Jungle cartoon, or if Daredevil borrowed a plot device from the Ninja Turtles.

And the idea that Blofeld created that vast international criminal network just to get at Bond is too crazy even for a Bond villain.

I have no problem with ethnic or female action heroes, but I'm annoyed by radical changes to existing characters. Rather than make Captain America or Spider-Man black, or Thor female, Marvel should build up Luke Cage, the Falcon, Valkyrie, and Sif. And instead of a female Doctor Who, how about a spin-off series starring Leela or Romana?

On your last point, TC, I think Catherine's probably too old these days for any of those roles. On the issue of Cap, Spidey, and Thor being black or female, I don't mind that so much because it's different people who have assumed the roles, rather than Steve Rogers and Peter Parker being turned black, or Don Blake being made female, and it's probably only a temporary thing in two out of three of those changes.

As far as Bond goes, if Craig does another one, let's hope they turn out a classic 007 film, as it may well be his last one.

The ending of Spectre looked almost as if it was intended as a finale for the Craig series. If the next Bond film is another reboot, it might be best to cast a new Bond.

If the next film is a direct sequel to Spectre, then I kind of expect the opening sequence to be a repeat of the ending of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and the rest of the movie to be an unofficial remake of You Only Live Twice (the novel) or an expanded remake of the pre-credits sequence of Diamonds Are Forever (the movie).

I seem to recall some talk of both Lewis Collins and Ian Ogilvie as possible replacements for Roger Moore in the mid-1980's. It was just rumors and speculation, though. (In 1967, there were vague rumors of Richard Burton, Lee Marvin, and even Adam West as replacements for Connery.) Return of the Saint was shown on late night TV in the US sometime around 1980. AFAIK, The Professionals was never shown over here, but I could be wrong. (A lot of the British detective and spy shows were syndicated in the US, and distribution was spotty.) Some Americans might remember the late Mr. Collins as the SAS officer in Who Dares Wins, which was shown in America as The Final Option.

And, yeah, in the early-to-mid-1980's, I thought that that Pierce Brosnan was too young and bland-looking to play Bond. (That seems to have also been a common complaint about Lazenby when he did OHMSS.) It's just as well that Brosnan didn't get a chance to play Bond until he was a little older.

I get the impression that the Craig Bonds are supposed to fit in and around previous movies, in a sort of 'untold tales' way. That would mean that the Connery Bonds being set in the '60s, for example, merely reflects a then-topical reference of the times and isn't meant to be taken literally. Or maybe Eon plan on remaking those movies, who knows? Ian Ogilvie was like Roger Moore's less handsome wee brother and wouldn't have worked as Bond, I don't think. It's said that Cubby Broccoli thought Lewis Collins was too 'aggressive-looking' to be Bond, which may have been a factor (surprisingly), but I think it was his not being 6' 2" that lost him the role. (If he ever had a serious chance of it, that is.) Yeah, I thought Brosnan was too young and skinny when he was first spoken of for the role, and was actually glad that he didn't get it. Until I saw the Timothy Dalton movies and saw how far the franchise had slipped. Dalton looked great in the publicity stills, but that didn't translate to the cinema screen, alas.

STUDIO 77

About the artist:

From 1985 to 2000 A.D. (little joke there), I contributed to a variety of high profile comics and magazines for various companies.

For IPC/FLEETWAY/EGMONT, I freelanced as a lettering and logo artiston various weekly comics and monthly magazines, and also as a resize comic artistandspot illustratoron pocket books, summer specials and annuals.

ForMARVEL U.K., BLACK LIBRARY, REDAN and USBORNE BOOKS, I again freelanced as a lettering artist, also working as arestoration artistfor MARVEL U.S., restoring and re-creating certain pages of JACK KIRBY art for their MARVEL MASTERWORKS editions.

I also lettered the MARVELMAN sample pages submitted to MARVEL U.S. when they were considering acquiring the character, which - as we all now know - they DID.

Supplied comic strips, cartoons and illustrated advertisements for local business campaigns and newspaper publication on a professional basis since the age of 16. Did my first paid art job for publication at 14 or 15 for Lanarkshire Education Board.

Image Enlargement:

In a few instances some images are featured at full size (or larger) to begin with, so clicking is redundant.

Copyright Notice:

Images remain the property of their respective copyright owners and are used here only for the purpose of review, promotion, and nostalgia.

********************************************

In the case of images culled from my own collection where copyright of an item isn't mine, I impose no copying restrictions on fellow bloggers.

(Although, if you don't allow copying on your own site, then you really shouldn't be copying from others, should you?)

And while you can credit this blog if you like, it's not mandatory. Who has time to make notes of every casually visited site during an idle browse of the internet?

In the case of anyone copying images of my own artwork and calligraphy, I affirm my right to be identified as the creator, and any such copying should not be for the purpose of monetary or material gain. (Unless it's mine.)

******************************************

Please also note that this blog is not sponsored by, affiliated with, or connected to, any organisation, business, or group, and is wholly independent.

Discerning Members:

Disclaimer:

Please note that the opinions expressed on this site by myself should not be presumed to be shared or endorsed by any members unless they so specify. And that works both ways.